Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Advances in the Mechanization of Regenerating Plantation Forests: a Review

  • Forest Engineering (R Spinelli, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Forestry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The mechanization of silvicultural work on forest plantations is usually driven by a decreasing supply of motivated labour which increases its relative cost. Mechanization can also result in other advantages like increased effectiveness, higher efficiency, and improved working conditions. The purpose of our review is to examine the last few decades’ endeavours to mechanize the regeneration activities of plantation forestry in the southern and northern hemisphere. In this case, regeneration activities include (1) site preparation; (2) tree planting; and (3) stand tending until the crop trees are free from vegetative competition.

Recent Findings

Originally, the mechanization of silvicultural work commenced in the northern hemisphere, but over the past decades, the most notable progress has been made in the southern hemisphere plantation forests. Although soil preparation is largely mechanized across the globe, tree planting and stand tending activities lag behind because of factors such as global variations in the manner in which they are performed, higher level of complexity, and low-cost competitiveness compared with existing labour-intensive methods.

Summary

For mechanization of regeneration/silvicultural activities to progress, productive and adaptable machines will be required where economies of scale permit cost-efficient operations. These machines will probably have to be modified to the specific forestry context of different countries. Knowledge of the existing and state-of-the-art regeneration technologies available in both the northern and southern hemispheres is important for foresters to make informed decisions about the selection and application of mechanized regeneration systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, Ravindranath N, Verardo DJ, Dokken DJ. Land use, land-use change and forestry: a special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press; 2000.

  2. Theron K. Establishment. In: Owen D, editor. South African Forestry handbook. 4th ed. Pretoria: South African Institute of Commercial Forestry Research; 2000. p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Viero P, du Toit B. Establishment and regeneration of eucalypt, pine and wattle stands. In: Bredenkamp B, Upfold S, editors. South African Forestry handbook. 5th ed. Pretoria: Southern African Institute of Forestry; 2012. p. 100–6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Evans J, Turnbull JW. Plantation forestry in the tropics: the role, silviculture, and use of planted forests for industrial, social, environmental, and agroforestry purposes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rasmussen A, Von der Gonna M. Distance between powered-disc trencher passes: effects on productivity. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada 1991. Silviculture Technical Note TN-160

  6. Poynton R Tree planting in southern Africa: the eucalypts. Department of Forestry 1979

  7. Payn T, Carnus J-M, Freer-Smith P, Kimberley M, Kollert W, Liu S, et al. Changes in planted forests and future global implications. For Ecol Manag. 2015;352:57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Silversides C. Mechanized forestry, World War II to the present. For Chron. 1984;60(4):231–5.

  9. Ersson BT. Concepts for mechanized tree planting in southern Sweden [doctoral thesis]. Sweden: SLU; 2014. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae 2014:76

  10. • Laine T. Mechanized tree planting in Finland and improving its productivity [doctoral thesis]. Finland: University of Helsinki; 2017. This dissertation provides in-depth information on the development of mechanized tree planting in the boreal zone.

    Google Scholar 

  11. • Guerra SPS, Soler RR, Sereghetti GC, Oguri G. An evaluation of the economics and productivity of fully mechanised tree seedling planting in Brazil. South Forests J Forest Sci. 2019;81(3):281–4. This publication provides an overview of mechanized planting in Brazil.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hallongren H, Rantala J. Commercialisation and international market potential of Finnish silvicultural machines. Silva Fenn. 2012;46(4):583–93.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ketcheson D, Smyth J. Labor: the key to Ontario’s silvicultural program. For Chron. 1977;53(6):336–40.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thiffault N, Roy V. Living without herbicides in Québec (Canada): historical context, current strategy, research and challenges in forest vegetation management. Eur J For Res. 2011;130(1):117–33.

    Google Scholar 

  15. McEwan A, Steenkamp J, editors. Silviculture modernization in the South African forestry industry. Proceedings of the second international congress of silviculture, 26th–29th Novembe, Florence. Florence: Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali; 2014

  16. Hodgson T. Justifications for mechanisation in Silviculture. S Afr Forest J. 1979;110(1):16–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Manner J, Bergkvist I, Andersson G, Jönsson P, Sundblad L-G. Simulating concepts for fully mechanized stand regeneration. Sweden: Skogforsk 2019 Arbetsrapport 1024–2019

  18. Gonzales KC, Gustafsson K, Harling M, Karlsson M, Rånman H, Sager FR. Planting drone for forestry technology research: Luleå University of Technology; 2015. Sirius -Creative Product Development Project Report.

  19. • Lideskog H. A methodology for automation of mechanized forest regeneration [doctoral thesis]. Sweden: Luleå University of Technology; 2018. This dissertation gives up-to-date insights on obstacle detection during site preparation and the automation of regeneration machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Radics R, Duong L, editors. Planterbot (planting robot). 52nd International Symposium on Forestry Mechanization; 2019 6–9 October Sopron, Hungary/Forchtenstein, Austria: Tibor Alpár vice-rector.

  21. • Baker M. Mechanised Silviculture opportunities and challenges for the new Zealand forest industry. New Zealand: Kellog Rural Leadership Programme; 2018. This report is a review of silviculture technology developments globally.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Strandström M, Saarinen V-M, Hallongren H, Hämäläinen J, Poikela A, Rantala J. Koneellisen istutuksen ja taimikonhoidon kilpailukyky [The competitiveness of mechanized planting and tending]. Metsätehon Raportti. 2011;218:29.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. Mechanisation.

  24. Gonçalves JM, Stape JL, Laclau J-P, Bouillet JP, Ranger J. Assessing the effects of early silvicultural management on long-term site productivity of fast-growing eucalypt plantations: the Brazilian experience. Southern For J Forest Sci. 2008;70(2):105–18.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Paarsch HJ, Shearer BS. The response of worker effort to piece rates: evidence from the British Columbia tree-planting industry. J Hum Resour. 1999:643–67.

  26. Hallsby G, Örlander G. A comparison of mounding and inverting to establish Norway spruce on podzolic soils in Sweden. Forestry. 2004;77(2):107–17.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schönau A. Requirements for intensive silviculture. S Afr Forest J. 1989;150(1):40–9.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ersson BT, Jundén L, Lindh EM, Bergsten U. Simulated productivity of conceptual, multi-headed tree planting devices. Int J For Eng. 2014;25(3):201–13.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hallongren H, Laine T, Rantala J, Saarinen V-M, Strandström M, Hämäläinen J, et al. Competitiveness of mechanized tree planting in Finland. Scand J For Res. 2014;29(2):144–51.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Steenkamp J, Viljoen S, Steenkamp H. ProPlant1; 2018. https://www.forestry.co.za/uploads/File/Industry%20News/2018/PropPlant%201%20Brochure%20-%2020170818.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2019.

  31. Ersson BT, Laine T, Saksa T. Mechanized tree planting in Sweden and Finland: current state and key factors for future growth. Forests. 2018;9(7):370.

    Google Scholar 

  32. IBÁ. Indústria Brasileira de Árvores. Anuário estatístico [Brazilian Tree Industry. Statistical yearbook]; 2019. Report No.: ano base 2018.

  33. SNIF. Boletim SNIF 2018 [Bulletin The National Forest Information System – SNIF]. 2018. http://www.florestal.gov.br/documentos/publicacoes/4092-boletim-snif-2018-ed1/file. Accessed 19 Oct 2019.

  34. Berliner D Systematic conservation planning for the forest biome of South Africa. In: Forestry DoWAa, editor. Pretoria: DWAF; 2006. p. 10–1.

  35. Godsmark R, Oberholzer F. The South African forestry and forest products industry 2017. Forestry South Africa, Pietermaritzburg. 2019. https://www.forestry.co.za/uploads/File/industry_info/statistical_data/new%20layout/South%20African%20Forestry%20&%20Forest%20Products%20Industry%20-%202017.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2019.

  36. Skogsstyrelsen. Statistical Database: Official Statistics of Sweden. Swedish Forest Agency. 2019. https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/statistik/statistikdatabas/. Accessed 28 Feb 2020.

  37. LUKE. Statistical Database: Official Statistics of Finland. Natural Resources Institute Finland. 2018. https://statdb.luke.fi/ Accessed 28 February 2020.

  38. CFS. National Forestry Database. Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada. 2019. http://nfdp.ccfm.org/. Accessed 28 Feb 2020.

  39. Valverde SR. Análise técnica e econômica do sistema de colheita de árvores inteiras em povoamentos de eucalipto [Technical and economic analysis of the whole tree harvesting system in eucalyptus stands]: Univerisdade Federal de Viçosa; 1995.

  40. Antonangelo A As inovaçoes tecnológicas na silvicultura brasileira e seus impactos sobre a expansão desta Atividade [Technological innovations in Brazilian silviculture and their impacts on the expansion of this activity]. Universidade de São Paulo; 1996.

  41. Costa LMd. Manejo de solos em áreas reflorestadas [Soil management in reforested areas. Soil-Eucalypt relationship]. Relacao Solo-Eucalipto Barros NF & RF de Novais, Ed Univ Federal de Vigosa, Minas Gérais. 1990;237–64.

  42. Gonçalves JLdM, Stape JL, Wichert MC, Gava JL. Manejo de resíduos vegetais e preparo de solo [Green waste management and soil preparation]. Conservação e cultivo de solos para plantações florestais [Soil conservation and cultivation for forest plantation]. 2002.

  43. Arthur Júnior JC, editor. Encontro brasileiro de silvicultura [Brazilian forestry meeting]. Curitiba – PR; 2008.

  44. Schettino S, Campos JCC, Minette LJ, Souza APd. Work precariousness: ergonomic risks to operators of machines adapted for forest harvesting. Revista Árvore; 2017.

  45. Suzuki LEAS, de Lima CLR, Reinert DJ, Reichert JM, Pillon CN. Estrutura e armazenamento de água em um Argissolo sob pastagem cultivada, floresta nativa e povoamento de eucalipto no Rio Grande do Sul [Water structure and storage in an Argisol under cultivated pasture, native forest and eucalyptus stand in Rio Grande do Sul]. Rev Bras Ciênc Solo. 2014;38(1):94–106.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Andrade MLdC, Tassinari D, Dias Junior MdS, Martins RP, Rocha WW, Souza ZRd. Soil compaction caused by harvest and logging operations in eucalyptus forests in coarse-textured soils from northeastern Brazil. Ciência e Agrotecnologia; 2017.

  47. Lanças K. Subsolagem ou escarificação [Subsoiling or scarification]. Cultivar Máquinas. 2002;1:34–7.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Paiva HN, Jacovine LAG. Trindade C, Ribeiro GT. Cultivo de eucalipto: implantação e manejo [Cultivating Eucalypt: implementation and manegement]. Viçosa: Aprenda Fácil; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hinze W. Silviculture of Eucalypts. In: Van der Sijde H, editor. South African forestry handbook. 3rd ed. Pretoria: South African Institute of Forestry Research; 1993. p. 171–85.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Teie W, Pool C. Fire manager’s handbook on veld and forest fires. Strategies, tactics and safety South African edition Southern African Institute of Forestry Menlo Park. 2003.

  51. Dovey S, Smith C, du Toit B. Effects of site management on nutrient accretion of a Eucalyptus grandis plantation in South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: Institute for Commercial Forestry Research; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rolando C. Pine regeneration workshop: Strengthening the link between nursery and field. Pietermaritzburg: Institute for Commercial Forestry Research; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Chapman C Harvest, mulch, pit and plant. SA Forestry Magazine. 2010 31 October.

  54. Le Roux J Mulching through the eyes of a forester. Focus on Forestry conference; 19–21 April; Howick. Petermaritzburg: CMO; 2017.

  55. Madikizela S The effects of burning or mulching of harvest residues on selected soil properties in a Eucalyptus plantation in Northern KwaZulu-Natal [Doctoral Thesis]. University of Kwazulu-Natal; 2014.

  56. Ackerman S, Rietz D. Current operational constraints in the harvesting-silviculture interface: a scoping study: ICFR Technical Note 02/2014. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research … 2014.

  57. Schönau A. Silvicultural considerations for high productivity of Eucalyptus grandis. For Ecol Manag. 1984;9(4):295–314.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Smith C, Norris C, Esprey L. The effect of land preparation at establishment on the productivity of fast growing hardwoods in South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: Institute for Commercial Forestry Research; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hechter U. The impact of re-establishment practices on tree survival, growth and uniformity in South African eucalypt plantations [masters dissertation]. South Africa: Nelson Mandela University; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Crane J A decade of developing novel mechanised silviculture equipment. Wood Southern Africa and Timber Times; 2017.

  61. Light ME, Viero P, Little K. Comparison of manual and motor manual pitting instruments on 2.8 year Eucalyptus grandis growth in the KwaZulu-Natal midlands. Pietermaritzburg: Institute for Commercial Forestry Research; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Chapman C. Mechanised pitting machine in the spotlight. SA Forestry. 2012 5 November.

  63. Chapman C. Mechanisation changing the face or forestry. SA Forestry. 2015 15 March.

  64. Department of Labour. Sectorial determination: Forestry Sector 2018. In: labour TSADo, editor. Pretoria: Department of Labour; 2018.

  65. • Ramantswana M Unravelling future silviculture re-establishment technologies in plantation forestry. Focus on Forestry Conference; 10 April Nelspruit: CMO; 2019. This presentation provide details about various regeneration activities and methods use in South Africa.

  66. Brunberg T, Eliasson L. Underlag för produktionsnorm för grotskotare [Productivity norms during slash forwarding]. Skogforsk 2013 Rapport 45.

  67. Johansson J, Liss J-E, Gullberg T, Björheden R. Transport and handling of forest energy bundles—advantages and problems. Biomass Bioenergy. 2006;30(4):334–41.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Frisch D GROT-skotning med rundvirkesskotare och GROT-skotare, en jämförande studie [Residue logging with conventional forwarder and residue forwarder, a comparative study]. Umeå: SLU, Institutionen för skogens biomaterial och teknologi. 2018 Rapport 2018:11.

  69. Hörnsten L Skogsvård 1993 − Det storskaliga skogsbrukets system och metoder [Silviculture 1993 -The forest companies’ systems and methods]. Uppsala: Skogforsk 1993. Arbetsrapport nr 310.

  70. Frölén D Markberedarnas tekniska utveckling [The technical development of mechanical site preparation]: SLU, Institutionen för skogens biomaterial och teknologi. 2019. Arbetsrapport 6.

  71. Skogsstyrelsen. Skogsstatistisk årsbok 1995 [Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 1995]. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen [National Board of Forestry]; 1995.

  72. SCA. SCA Skog -Utvärdering enligt svenska FSC-standardens kriterie 8.2 [SCA -Evaluation according to Swedish FSC-standards’ criterium 8.2]. Sundsvall: SCA Skog; 2018.

  73. Mc Carthy R, Johansson F, Bergkvist I. Högläggning med tre-och fyruddigt rivhjul [Mounding with three- and four-pointed mattock wheels]. Uppsala: Skogforsk 2017. Arbetsrapport 925.

  74. Ersson BT, Cormier D, St-Amour M, Guay J. The impact of disc settings and slash characteristics on the Bracke three-row disc trencher’s performance. Int J For Eng. 2017;28(1):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Johansson K, Nilsson U, Örlander G. A comparison of long-term effects of scarification methods on the establishment of Norway spruce. Forestry. 2013;86(1):91–8.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sundblad L-G. Grävmaskinburet aggregat klarar både inversmarkberedning och högläggning [A new unit available for mechanized inverting]. Sweden: Skogforsk 2009. Report No.: Resultat nr 11.

  77. Andersson M Work result after site preparation with a two-headed hanging test bench for inverting. Skinnskatteberg: SLU, Skogsmästarskolan 2018. Examensarbete 2018:03.

  78. Bergkvist I, Sundblad L-G, Hajek J. A comparative study with three different soil preparation machines including scarification, traditional mounding and a centre-mounted device for inverse soil preparation. Sweden: Skogforsk 2018. EFFORTE report D2.2.

  79. von Hofsten H Depositing soil mounds for seedlings-an alternative to scarification on stony ground and heritage sites. Uppsala: Skogforsk 2003. Resultat nr 21.

  80. Dominy SWJ. A comparison of the Silva Wadell powered cone scarifier and TTS-35 disc trencher in central Newfoundland. Forest Engineering and Research Institute of Canada; 1993. Field Note Silviculture-60.

  81. Roturier S, Sundén M, Bergsten U. Re-establishment rate of reindeer lichen species following conventional disc trenching and HuMinMix soil preparation in Pinus-lichen clear-cut stands: a survey study in northern Sweden. Scand J For Res. 2011;26(2):90–8.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Mattsson S EcoPlanter, planteringsmaskin med fräs [The EcoPlanter: a mounder-equipped planting machine]. Sweden: Skogforsk1997. Resultat nr 4.

  83. Granlund P, Hallonborg U, vonHofsten H. Skruven: Skogsarbeten 1989. Stencil 1989-12-11.

  84. Zackrisson O, Norberg G, Dolling A, Nilsson M-C, Jäderlund A. Site preparation by steam treatment: effects on forest vegetation control and establishment, nutrition, and growth of seeded Scots pine. Can J For Res. 1997;27(3):315–22.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Kaarakka L, Vaittinen J, Marjanen M, Hellsten S, Kukkola M, Saarsalmi A, et al. Stump harvesting in Picea abies stands: soil surface disturbance and biomass distribution of the harvested stumps and roots. For Ecol Manag. 2018;425:27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Rantala J, Saarinen V-M, Hallongren H. Quality, productivity and costs of spot mounding after slash and stump removal. Scand J For Res. 2010;25(6):507–14.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Hunt JA, McMinn R. Mechanical site preparation and forest regeneration in Sweden and Finland: implications for technology transfer. FRDA report. 31 1988.

  88. Statistics database: Forest statistics: Structure and production: Silvicultural and forest improvement work [database on the Internet]. Luke. 2018. Available from: http://stat.luke.fi/en/metsa. Accessed: 10 October 2019.

  89. Mäkitalo K. Effect of site preparation and reforestation method on survival and height growth of scots pine. Scand J For Res. 1999;14(6):512–25.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Saksa T, Miina J, Haatainen H, Kärkkäinen K. Quality of spot mounding performed by continuously advancing mounders. Silva Fennica. 2018;52(2):13.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Uotila K, Rantala J, Saksa T, Harstela P. Effect of soil preparation method on economic result of Norway spruce regeneration chain. Silva Fennica. 2010;44(3):143–53.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Helenius P, Saarinen M. Regeneration result of excavator-mounted rototiller in direct seeding of scots pine on forestry-drained peatland. Scand J For Res. 2013;28(8):752–7.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Luoranen J, Rikala R, Smolander H. Machine planting of Norway spruce by Bracke and Ecoplanter: an evaluation of soil preparation, planting method and seedling performance. Silva Fennica. 2011;45:341–57.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kamp AR. Policies for the reduction of slash pile burning in BC forests [Masters Thesis]: Simon Fraser University; 2013.

  95. Prévost M, editor. Effets du scarifiage sur les propriétés du sol, la croissance des semis et la compétition: revue des connaissances actuelles et perspectives de recherches au Québec. Annales des sciences forestières; 1992: EDP Sciences.

  96. Jeglum JK. Best forestry practices: a guide for the boreal forest in Ontario. Canada: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2003.

  97. MacKenzie MD. The effect of mechanical site preparation on soil properties, nutrient dynamics and tree growth: tenth year results for two sites in northern British Columbia [Masters Thesis]: Simon Fraser University; 1999.

  98. Hawkins CB, Steele TW, Letchford T. The economics of site preparation and the impacts of current forest policy: evidence from central British Columbia. Can J For Res. 2006;36(2):482–94.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Nishio G. The risk of slips, trips, and falls for tree planters on steep slopes with slash. Vancouver: FPInnovations 2013. Advantage Report Vol. 14 No. 4.

  100. von der Gonna M Excavator attachments for site preparation in British Columbia. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. 1992. Technical Note TN-180.

  101. Cormier D Drawbar pull requirements of the TTS-Delta powered-disc trencher. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada, 1995. Field Note Silviculture-78.

  102. Regeneration [database on the Internet]. Canadian Forest Service. 2019. Available from: http://nfdp.ccfm.org/en/data/regeneration.php. Accessed: 20 September 2019.

  103. Gingras M, Cormier D. Evaluation of the Bräcke M36a three-row mounder. Canada: FPInnovations 2009. Advantage Report Vol. 11 No. 5.

  104. Walsh D, Krause C. La plantation sur monticule, un moyen efficace pour augmenter la productivité de la forêt boréale – Bilan d’une plantation d’épinettes noires de 30 ans située près du lac Chibougamau: Université du Québec à Chicoutimi 2016.

  105. Guedes ICDL, Coelho Júnior LM, Oliveira ADD, Mello JMD, Rezende JLPD, Silva CPDC. Economic analysis of replacement regeneration and coppice regeneration in eucalyptus stands under risk conditions. CERNE. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-77602011000300014.

  106. Gonçalves JdM, Alvares CA, Behling M, Alves JM, Pizzi GT, Angeli A. Produtividade de plantações de eucalipto manejadas nos sistemas de alto fuste e talhadia, em função de fatores edafoclimáticos [Productivity of eucalyptus plantations managed in high shaft and coppice systems, due to edaphoclimatic factors]. Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril-Artigo em periódico indexado (ALICE). 2014.

  107. Freitas MD. et alii-Manejo de eucaliptais para rotações sucessivas [Eucalyptus management for successive rotations]. Boletim informativo IPEF, Piracicaba. 1978;6(19):3.

  108. Klein JEM, Bortolas EP, Assis TFD, Perrando ER. Fatores operacionais que afetam a regeneração do Eucalyptus manejado por talhadia [operational factors that affect the regeneration of Eucalyptus managed by coppice]. Série Técnica IPEF 1997.

  109. Sereghetti GC. Qualidade do plantio manual e mecanizado Para eucalipto e pinus [quality of manual and mechanized planting for eucalyptus and pine] [doctoral thesis]: Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP); 2016.

  110. Soler RR. Influência do relevo e da presença de resíduos da colheita florestal no rendimento e na qualidade silvicultural de um sistema de plantio mecanizado [Influence of relief and presence of forest harvest residues on yield and silvicultural quality of a mechanized planting system]. 2016.

  111. Burla E Avaliação técnica e econômica do harvester na colheita e processamento de madeira em diferentes condições de declividade e produtividade florestal [Technical and economic evaluation of harvester in harvesting and processing wood under different conditions of declivity and forest productivity] [Masters dissertation]: Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia Agrícola). Universidade Federal de … ; 2008.

  112. Silveira GM. As máquinas de plantar: aplicadoras, distribuidoras, semeadoras, plantadoras, cultivadoras [Planting machines: applicators, distributors, seeders, planters, cultivators]. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Globo; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Souza C. O conjunto do ano 2000 [The kit of the year 2000]. O Produtor do Fumo 1999(101):8–9.

  114. IPEF. Relatório Anual IPEF de 1999, [IPEF annual report, 1999]. Piracicaba: Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais 2000.

  115. Metasa. Transplantadora de mudas [Seedling transplanter]. 2002. http://www.metasa.com.br/implementos/produto_mtm.htm. Accessed 17 August 2019.

  116. Fonseca ÉdP. Padrão de qualidade de mudas de Trema mícrantha (L.) Blume., Cedrela fissilis Vell. e Aspidosperma polyneuron Müll. Arg. produzidas sob diferentes períodos de sombreamento [Seedling quality standard of Trema mícrantha (L.) Blume., Cedrela fissilis Vell. and Aspidosperma polyneuron Müll. Arg. produced under different shading periods] [Doctoral Thesis]: Universidade Estadual Paulista; 2000.

  117. Guerra SPS, Lanças KP. O desenvolvimento de uma plantadora florestal [Development of a forest planter]. Revista Opiniões. CP-29. 2012.

  118. IPEF. IPEF apresenta a primeira plantadora florestal semiautônoma do Brasil! [IPEF presents the first semi-autonomous forest planter in Brazil]. Brazil: IPEF; 2019. p. https://www.ipef.br/ipefexpress/nr109.htm.

  119. Norris C. Eucalypts. In: Owen D, editor. South African forestry handbook. 4th ed. Pretoria: Southern African Institute of Forestry; 2000. p. 122–3.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Stubbings J, Schönau A. Management of short rotation coppice crops of Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden. South African For J. 1980;115(1):38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Rolando C, Little K. The effect of different methods of harvest residue management on pit quality during pine re-establishment. Pietermaritzburg: Institute for Commercial Forestry Research; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  122. da Costa D. Modernisation And The Effect On Silviculture. Focus on Engineering conference; 6 November 2013; Lythwood Lodge Lidgetton KwaZulu-Natal 2013.

  123. Ackerman S, Fryer D, Jackson R. South African Outdoor Power Equipment Safety & Operating Handbook. Institute for Commercial Forestry Research: Pietermaritzburg; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Gemishuizen P Silviculture practice for Pine and Eucalyptus. In: Vosloo J, editor. Saasveld 50 (1932–1982). George: Directorate of Forestry, Department of Environment Affairs; 1982. p. 102–11.

  125. Parker RJ. A field investigation into the impact of task demands on worker responses in the South African forestry Silviculture sector [masters dissertation]. Grahamstown: Rhodes University; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Viero P. High pressure water planting - Wasserplanzer trial feedback. Mondi presentation. Mondi: Piet Retief; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  127. ANCO manufacturing. Silviculture planting equipment. In: ANCO MO3000 tanker / planter. ANCO manfacturing, Piet retief. 2016. https://www.ancoman.net/planting-equipment?lightbox=dataItem-ivbzj6rn. Accessed 26 February 2020.

  128. Mondi. Work instruction Wasserplanzer. Pietermaritzburg: Mondi; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Ersson BT Possible concepts for mechanized tree planting in southern Sweden - an introductory essay on forest technology. Umeå SLU 2010. Institutionen för skoglig resurshushållning, Arbetsrapport 269.

  130. Hallonborg U et al. Maskinell plantering med Silva Nova: nuvarande status samt utvecklingsmöjligheter i jämförelse med manuell plantering [Mechanized planting with the Silva Nova tree planter -recent state and feasibility compared with manual planting]. Skogforsk; 1995. Redogörelse nr 6.

  131. Augustsson M, Dahl-Jendelin A. Detaljkonstruktion av automatiserat magasin för planteringsaggregat [Detail design of automated magazine for planting devices]. 2015. Chalmers, Institutionen för Material- och tillverkningsteknik. Examensarbete.

  132. Ersson BT, Bergsten U, Lindroos O. Reloading mechanized tree planting devices faster using a seedling tray carousel. Silva Fennica. 2014;48(2):14.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Sundblad L-G, Bergkvist I. New solutions for seedling supply chain and enhancement in planting devices; technical report- development and innovations: Skogforsk 2018. EFFORTE Deliverable 2.1.

  134. Bylund B. Development of a three headed mechanized planting device for forestry applications [Master’s Thesis]. Sweden: Luleå University of Technology; 2015.

  135. Kaila S. GA Serlachius Oy: n istutuskone. [The GA Serlachius planting machine. Test report of the machine]. Metsätehon katsaus. 1984;9:1–6.

  136. Arnkil R, Hämäläinen J. Bräcke Planter- ja Ilves-istutuskoneiden tuottavuus ja työjälki [Bräcke Planter and Ilves tree planting machines]1995. Metsätehon Katsaus 1/1995.

  137. Rummukainen A, Tervo L, Kautto K. llves and Bräcke forest planting machines - Productivity, quality of work and cost. Vantaa, Finland: Metla 2002. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja, 857.

  138. Halonen M. Koneellisen istutuksen tuotos-ja kehittämistutkimus–EcoPlanter 2000.[A study of productivity and development of mechanized planting–EcoPlanter 2000]. UPM-Kymmene Metsä 2002.

  139. Rantala J, Laine T. Productivity of the M-Planter tree-planting device in practice. Silva Fennica. 2010;44(5):859–69.

  140. Laine T, Saarinen V-M. Comparative study of the Risutec Automatic Plant Container (APC) and Bracke planting devices. Silva Fennica. 2014;48(3).

  141. Laine T, Kärhä K, Hynönen A. A survey of the Finnish mechanized tree-planting industry in 2013 and its success factors. Silva Fennica. 2016;50(2):14.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Dumins K, Stals T, Lazdina D, editors. Forest regeneration quality assessment by ASTA system. International scientific conference RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2017; 2017.

  143. Saarinen V-M, Hyyti H, Laine T, Strandström M. Kohti jatkuvatoimista koneistutusta [Towards continuously operating planting machines]. Metsäteho. 2013. Metsätehon raportti 227.

  144. Kemppainen T, Visala A, editors. Stereo vision based tree planting spot detection. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; 2013: IEEE.

  145. Cormier D, Ryans M. Short-and long-term evaluation of the Silva Nova planting machine. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. 1992. Technical note TN-190.

  146. Paillé G A history of forestry in Canada. FPInnovations. 2013.

  147. Stjernberg EI. Tree planting machines: a review of the intermittent-furrow and spot planting types: Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada 1985. Special Report No. SR-31.

  148. Sutherland B Evaluation of the tetra multifunctional semi-automatic tree planter on two sites in Quebec. Information report OX-Canadian Forestry Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre. 1988.

  149. Stjernberg E, Evans C. The Bräcke Planter: a brief study in western Canada. FERIC 2004. Advantage Report Vol. 5, No. 18.

  150. St-Amour M. Reforestation trials with the Bräcke P11. a planter. FERIC. 2009. Advantage Report. Vol 11, No. 19.

  151. da Silva PHM, Poggiani F, Libardi PL, Gonçalves AN. Fertilizer management of eucalypt plantations on sandy soil in Brazil: initial growth and nutrient cycling. For Ecol Manag. 2013;301:67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Bellote AFJ, Ferreira CA. Nutrientes minerales y crecimiento de árboles abonados de Eucalyptus grandis en el Estado de São Paulo [mineral nutrients and growth of accredited arbors of Eucalypus grandis in the state of São Paulo]. Bosque. 1995;16(1):69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  153. O’Connell A, Rance S. Predicting nitrogen supply in plantation eucalypt forests. Soil Biol Biochem. 1999;31(14):1943–51.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Malavolta E, Haag HP, Mello FAF, Sobro MOCB. La Nutricion mineral de Algunas Cosechas Tropicales [mineral nutrition of some tropical crops]. Soil Sci. 1965.

  155. Balloni EA. O uso intensivo da floresta e seus reflexos na fertilidade do solo [The intensive use of the 701 forest and its effects on soil fertility]. R Ánore, (Boi Téc Especial N). 1979;2:83–931.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Poschenrieder C, Gunsé B, Corrales I, Barceló J. A glance into aluminum toxicity and resistance in plants. Sci Total Environ. 2008;400:1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Tahara K, Norisada M, Yamanoshita T, Kojima K. Role of aluminum-binding ligands in aluminum resistance of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Melaleuca cajuputi. Plant Soil. 2008;302:175–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-007-9464-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. de Oliveira SA, de Moraes MLT, Buzetti S. Efeito da aplicação de NPK e micronutrientes no desenvolvimento de Eucalyptus citriodora Hook [Effect of the application of NPK and micronutrients on the development of Eucalyptus citriodora Hook]. Floresta. 1999;29(1/2).

  159. Silveira RDA. Seja o doutor do seu eucalipto [Be a doctor of your eucalypt]. POTAFOS, 2001. 16 p.(POTAFOS. Arquivo do Agrônomo, 5); 2001.

  160. Christoffoleti P. Manejo de plantas daninhas em florestas [weed management in forests]. UNESP: Brazil; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Carbonari C Discussion on herbicide application and weeding control technologies. In: Guerra SPS, editor. Brazil 2019.

  162. Grey D, Herbert M, Ellis F. Forest soils and their implications for management. Forestry Handbook 1987:70–81.

  163. Herbert M, Schönau A. Fertilising commercial forest species in southern Africa: research progress and problems (part 1). South Afr For J. 1989;151(1):58–70.

    Google Scholar 

  164. du Toit B, Carlson C. Fertilization of commercial forest stands. In: Owen D, editor. South African Forestry Handbook. 4th ed. Pretoria: South African Institute of Forestry; 2000. p. 102–1.

    Google Scholar 

  165. da Costa D Discussion on application of fertilizer back packs. In: Ramantswana M, editor.2019.

  166. Schӧnau A, Stubbings J, Norris C. Silviculture of Eucalypts. In: Van der Sijde H, editor. South African forestry handbook. 3rd ed. Pretoria: South African Institute of Forestry Research; 1993. p. 171–85.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Little K, Willoughby I, Wagner R, Adams P, Frochot H, Gava J, et al. Towards reduced herbicide use in forest vegetation management. South Afr For J. 2006;207(1):63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Haigh H. Forestry weed control. In: von Gadow K, van der Zel D, van Laar A, Schӧnau A, Kassier H, Warkotsch P, et al., editors. South African Forestry handbook. 2nd ed. Pretoria: South African Institute of Forestry; 1987. p. 107–8.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Gous S Chemical vegetation management in Pinus radiata plantations in South Africa [doctoral thesis]: Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University; 1995.

  170. Little KM. The influence of vegetation control on the growth and pulping properties of a Eucalyptus grandis x camaldulensis hybrid clone [doctoral thesis]. KwaZulu-Natal: University of Natal; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  171. du Toit B, Smith CW, Little KM, Boreham G, Pallett RN. Intensive, site-specific silviculture: manipulating resource availability at establishment for improved stand productivity. A review of South African research. For Ecol Manag. 2010;259(9):1836–45.

    Google Scholar 

  172. Little KM, Ahtikoski A, Morris AR. Rotation-end financial performance of vegetation control on Eucalyptus smithii in South Africa. Southern For: a Journal of Forest Science. 2018;80(3):241–50.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Hedwall P-O, Gong P, Ingerslev M, Bergh J. Fertilization in northern forests–biological, economic and environmental constraints and possibilities. Scand J For Res. 2014;29(4):301–11.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Nilsson U, Örlander G. Response of newly planted Norway spruce seedlings to fertilization, irrigation and herbicide treatments. Ann For Sci. 2003;60(7):637–43.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Gruffman L, Ishida T, Nordin A, Näsholm T. Cultivation of Norway spruce and Scots pine on organic nitrogen improves seedling morphology and field performance. For Ecol Manag. 2012;276:118–24.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Nilsson U, Örlander G. Effects of regeneration methods on drought damage to newly planted Norway spruce seedlings. Can J For Res. 1995;25(5):790–802.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Glöde D, Bergkvist I. Mechanized cleaning down and out and back again? 2nd forest engineering conference. Växjö: Sweden Skogforsk; 2003.

  178. Ersson BT. Produktivitet vid selektiv mekaniserad bioenergiröjning av eftersatta röjningsbestånd. Umeå: SLU 2007. Institutionen för skoglig resurshushållning Arbetsrapport 166.

  179. Ligné D. New technical and alternative silvicultural approaches to pre-commercial thinning [doctoral thesis]. Umeå: SLU; 2004. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae Silvestria 331.

  180. Bergkvist I Stråkröjning i praktisk drift 2005–2006 [Corridor cleaning in practical operations 2005–2006]. Uppsala: Skogforsk 2007. Redogörelse nr. 1.

  181. Sängstuvall L. Improved harvesting technology for thinning of small diameter stands [doctoral thesis]. Umeå: SLU 2018 Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae; 2018:66.

  182. Bergström D Advanced biomass thinning: SLU 2018. EFFORTE Report Deliverable 2.4. .

  183. Sundström J, Svensson T. Economic comparison of uprooting versus motor manual cleaning in Götaland and southern Norrland. Umeå: SLU 2019. Report No.: andidatarbeten i skogsvetenskap 2019:24.

  184. Ammer C, Balandier P, Bentsen NS, Coll L, Löf M. Forest vegetation management under debate: an introduction. Eur J For Res. 2011;30(1):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  185. • Uotila K. Optimization of early cleaning and precommercial thinning methods in juvenile stand management of Norway spruce stands [doctoral thesis]. Finland: University of Helsink; 2017. This dissertation provides current insights into stand tending (pre-commercial thinning) of juvenile stands in Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Uotila K, Saksa T, Rantala J, Kiljunen N. Labour consumption models applied to motor-manual pre-commercial thinning in Finland. Silva Fennica. 2014;48(2):14.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Hallongren H, Kankaanhuhta V, Kukkonen M. Cleaning Scots pine seedling stands with mechanical uprooters-a work quality comparison of two related devices. Silva Fennica. 2016;50(3):15.

    Google Scholar 

  188. Laine T, Hamberg L, Saarinen V-M, Saksa T. The efficacy of Chondrostereum purpureum against sprouting of deciduous species after mechanized pre-commercial thinning. Silva Fennica. 2019;53(3):8.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Strandström M. Mechanized young stand management in Finland. In: Saksa T, editor. Proceedings of the OSCAR Workshop: Mechanized and efficient silviculture November 25–26, 2015; LUKE, Suonenjoki Research Unit : Natural Resources Institute Finland 2016.

  190. Nuutinen Y, Petty A, Bergström D, Rytkönen M, Di Fulvio F, Tiihonen I, et al. Quality and productivity in comminution of small-diameter tree bundles. Int J For Eng. 2016;27(3):179–87.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Bell FW, Ride KR, St-Amour ML, Ryans M. Productivity, cost, efficacy and cost effectiveness of motor-manual, mechanical, and herbicide release of boreal spruce plantations. For Chron. 1997;73(1):39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Buse L, Wagner R, Perrin B. Public attitudes towards forest herbicide use and the implications for public involvement. For Chron. 1995;71(5):596–600.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Kayahara GJ, Armstrong CL. Understanding First Nations rights and perspectives on the use of herbicides in forestry: a case study from northeastern Ontario. For Chron. 2015;91(2):126–40.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Gauthier M-M, Tremblay S. Precommercial thinning as a silvicultural option for treating very dense conifer stands. Scand J For Res. 2018;33(5):446–54.

    Google Scholar 

  195. St-Amour M. Semi-mechanized precommercial strip thinning – a practical operations guide. Canada: FPInnovations; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Nishio G. Precommercial thinning as a silvicultural option for treating very dense conifer stands. Vancouver: FPInnovations 2016. Technical Report No. 26.

  197. Guerra S, Oguri G, Maschetti S. Mechanization in Silviculture - Index survey. [Unpublished work]. In press 2020.

  198. Sutton R. Mounding site preparation: a review of European and North American experience. New For. 1993;7(2):151–92.

    Google Scholar 

  199. Löf M, Rydberg D, Bolte A. Mounding site preparation for forest restoration: survival and short term growth response in Quercus robur L. seedlings. For Ecol Manag. 2006;232(1–3):19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  200. Björklund S, Hällman E, Nilsson E, Nyström A, Wikner A. Development of a solution for automatic detection of clearcut obstacles Sweden: Luleå University of Technology. 2014. Sirius -Creative Product Development Project Report.

  201. Bayne KM, Parker RJ. The introduction of robotics for New Zealand forestry operations: Forest sector employee perceptions and implications. Technol Soc. 2012;34(2):138–48.

    Google Scholar 

  202. Husband S, editor. GPS guidance of mechanized site preparation in forestry plantations: a precision forestry approach. Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Precision Agriculture, 16pp., Denver, Colorado, USA; 2010.

  203. Schweier J, Magagnotti N, Labelle ER, Athanassiadis D. Sustainability impact assessment of forest operations: a review. Curr For Rep. 2019;5(3):101–13.

    Google Scholar 

  204. Vestlund K. Aspects of automation of selective cleaning. Sweden: SLU; 2005. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae 2005:74.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muedanyi Ramantswana.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors: Muedanyi Ramantswana, Saulo Philipe Sebastião Guerra, and Back Tomas Ersson declare that they have no conflict of interest. Citation of brands and models of equipment do not indicate recommendation by the authors.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Forest Engineering

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramantswana, M., Guerra, S.P.S. & Ersson, B.T. Advances in the Mechanization of Regenerating Plantation Forests: a Review. Curr Forestry Rep 6, 143–158 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00114-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00114-7

Keywords

Navigation